beta
Text
1. Defendant A and Defendant B jointly and severally committed against the Plaintiff KRW 113,456,200 and the Plaintiff from September 6, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From May 9, 2015 to June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixeds equivalent to KRW 101,873,200 (including value-added tax) at the site of the construction work of the construction work of the construction work of the construction work of the construction work of the loan located in Macheon-si (hereinafter “Defendant Company”). Defendant B, the representative director of the Defendant Company, as the representative director of the Defendant Company, was jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Company’s above obligation on July 27, 2015.
B. Around July 27, 2015, Defendant Company ordered the Plaintiff to supply additional containers under Defendant B’s joint and several sureties, and the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant Company with 11,583,000 won (including value-added tax) around September 5, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1, Evidence No. 2-2, Evidence No. 3-1, 2, Gap No. 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim against Defendant Company and Defendant B, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 113,456,200 (=101,873,200 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from September 6, 2015, which is the day following the final supply of ready-mixeds, until January 4, 2016, the delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint; Defendant B, until January 19, 2016; and each of them is fully paid.
On October 21, 2015, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants did not have an obligation to pay ready-mixeds, as they agreed to prepare an agreement with Nonparty E on October 21, 2015 and to take over obligations related to construction works.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that E has discharged the Defendants’ obligations. Therefore, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit.
3. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant C had jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay the instant ready-mixed price, but in light of the appraiser F’s appraisal result, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant C had jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation.